~p cotrr~r~

u~r ya' SAN FRANCISCO✓ ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENTY ~ ~. ~T.~

T~3s'. o7g~

1650 Mission St.Suite 4001650 Mission Si.

December 1, 2017 suite 400San Francisco,GA 94143-2479

Mayor Edwin M. Lee

Ci Hall, Room 200 Reception:

~' 415,558.6378

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place F~

San Francisco, CA 94102 415.558.6409

PlanningRe: Executive Directive 17-02: Keeping up the Pace of Housing Production inrarmation:

415.558.6377

Your Executive Directive 17-02 charged the Planning Department with submitting a plan for

your consideration by December 1, 2017 outlining process improvement measures to enhance

our regulatory and development review functions in order to streamline the approval and

construction of housing in San Francisco.

While there is no single solution to the housing crisis in San Francisco, we agree that

increasing the supply of housing at all income levels is critical to alleviating the pressures wecurrently face. San Francisco is building more housing now than in the past, but we are farfrom overcoming decades of under-production and keeping up with current population

growth. While the Planning Department has limited control over the market demand forhousing, we do play a considerable role in determining housing supply; our focus has been

and will continue to be expanding housing opportunities for all San Franciscans.

I can say without reservation that the Planning Department is staffed by a highly talented,

knowledgeable, and dedicated group of people who, despite innumerable challenges outside

of their control and growing workloads, are committed to improving this extraordinary citywe call home. They take their responsibilities seriously; not just in regards to housing, but toenvironmental review, historic preservation, design review, and much more. Nonetheless,planners,. including myself, recognize that unnecessarily complex processes hinder our abilityto do good planning and diminish our ability to serve the needs of the public. We welcomethis opportunity to revisit how we do our work.

To this end, we have conducted a comprehensive Department-wide review of our processes —

not only those directly related to housing, but the full range of our procedures. We believe

that such a holistic review, coupled with responsive policy and administrative andtechnology-based improvements, will allow more time and attention to be spent on the critical

planning issues that are most in need of attention —housing production chief among them.

Since shortly after the issuance of your Executive Directive, we facilitated an internal processinvolving many staff members, and we are excited to share with you the recommendations in

this plan that will be most impactful to our ability to approve more housing, faster.

We will continue to work to streamline procedures with your office, the Planning and Historic

Preservation Commissions, the Board of Supervisors, and the entire San Francisco community.

We look forward to discussing these proposals with you in greater detail and further refining

this plan.

'~

~Y _

Haim

of P arming

cc (via electronic mail):

Jason Elliott, Chief of Staff

Ken Rich, Director of Development

Jeff Buckley, Senior Advisor for Housing

Sarah Dennis-Phillips, Office of Economic &Workforce Development

President and Members, Planning Commission

President and Members, Historic Preservation Commission

SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING ~EP4RTMENT

3

INTRODUCTION

The mission of the San Francisco Planning Department is to shape the future of San Francisco

and the region by generating an extraordinary vision for the General Plan and in neighborhood

plans; fostering exemplary design through planning controls; improving our surroundings

through environmental analysis; preserving our unique heritage; encouraging a broad range of

housing and a diverse job base; and enforcing the Planning Code.

This mission, and our vision for making San Francisco the world’s most livable urban place –

environmentally, economically, socially, and culturally – reflect the commitment and values

that Planning Department staff apply to an array of tasks, large and small, on a daily basis. In

response to the Executive Directive on Housing Production, staff at all levels were invited to

identify specific ideas for streamlining and improving our current practices, with the goal of

pursuing this mission in the smartest, clearest, and most effective way possible.

To develop this plan, staff inventoried proposals generated from past improvement efforts,

formed a steering committee of content experts and senior staff from all organizational

divisions, and participated in a series of Department-wide, team-level, and one-on-one

discussions with the Planning Director and other senior staff. The Planning Commission has

provided initial guidance as well, through two public discussions at hearings on October 5 and

November 16, 2017, and through informal engagement between staff and Commission officers.

This process improvements plan is presented in the two following sections.

The first section presents an implementation outline for the plan, including an overview of the

anticipated timeframe and phases for implementation, and a description of the refinement

process, public review, and adoption steps that will be used for each of the different vehicles for

improvement (e.g. Department Procedures, Planning Code Amendments).

The second section presents the process improvement measures themselves, grouped in the

following categories:

A. Application and Intake Procedures

B. Routine Projects and Permits

C. Environmental Planning, Historic Preservation, and Design Review

D. Planning Code and Commission Policies

E. Administration, Training, and Technology

The implementation phase and type of action are indicated for each process improvement

measure, as described in the implementation section.

4

I. IMPLEMENTATION AND PHASING

Planning Department staff will work with Planning and Historic Preservation Commissioners,

the planning and development community, general public, sister agencies, Mayor’s Office, and

Board of Supervisors over the coming months to refine and implement the process

improvement measures presented in this plan. To ensure that decision-makers and the public

remain aware and engaged as these efforts progress, staff will deliver quarterly progress reports

to the Mayor’s Office, as required by the Executive Directive, as well as to the Planning

Commission, beginning in early 2018. These reports will provide an opportunity for all parties

to discuss and help shape the city’s planning processes.

The various improvement measures in this plan correspond to one of several implementation

paths, depending on the type of action to be adopted. These are noted for each measure in the

following section, and are as follows:

Operating Procedures refer to internal staff practices that may vary by Division or

functional team, and that generally are not accompanied by external documents, but are

established in internal guidance documents. These are established and modified at the

discretion of appropriate managers and senior staff.

Administrative/Technology Procedures are Department-wide procedures, technology

services, financial and personnel policies that are generally implemented by the

Administration Division. These are established at the discretion of the Chief

Administrative Officer or the Planning Director, as appropriate, and are generally not

accompanied by external documents.

Department Policies are formal policies establishing the specific procedures and

processes through which the Department executes its core functions, and are established

in formal, publicly available documents such as various Applications and Forms,

Director’s Bulletins, Zoning Administrator Bulletins, Guidelines, and public information

documents available online and at the Planning Information Center. These policies are

adopted at the discretion of the Planning Director, Zoning Administrator,

Environmental Review Officer, or other responsible official of the Planning Department.

Adoption actions in the above categories generally do not require public notification or

community outreach, though targeted informal engagement with community partners and

participants in the planning process is common.

Commission Policies: Formal policies establishing the rules governing Planning or

Historic Preservation Commission hearings and procedures. These are established by

adoption of the Commissions at duly noticed public hearings, and maintained by the

Office of Commission Affairs.

5

Code Amendments refer to amendments to the Planning Code, or other parts of the

Municipal Code, which can be enacted only through legislative action by the Board of

Supervisors and the Mayor. Planning Code Amendments are typically either initiated by

the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing and referred to the Board of

Supervisors for consideration, or introduced at the Board of Supervisors and referred to

the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation before the Board can adopt the

amendment. In addition to public hearings, community outreach and public

engagement is standard for significant changes, and formal staff analysis and

recommendations are required.

The following indicates the anticipated implementation phase for each proposed measure, as

follows:

Phase 1: To be implemented in the first quarter of 2018, Phase 1 generally includes

changes to internal operating procedures, administrative and technology procedures,

and departmental policies that are the highest priority for streamlining housing

production. This phase will include targeted engagement and outreach with community

partners.

Phase 2: To be further refined in the first half of 2018 and implemented by the end of the

calendar year, these generally include code amendments and Commission policies that

require a high level of public outreach and formal action by Commissions or the Board

of Supervisors.

Phase 3: Measures that are already underway or planned, but have timelines which may

stretch beyond 2018, or measures that need to be further developed before being

implemented or are lower priorities for streamlining housing production. Timeframes

for these measures will be updated as more information is available.

Finally, the Planning Department’s efforts to align our procedures and processes with our

mission do not begin or end with this plan. The Department will continue to evolve, expand,

and refine this plan and will update the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions,

Mayor’s Office, Board of Supervisors, and public as appropriate.

6

II. PROCESS IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

A. Application and Intake Procedures

The Department’s procedures for accepting and reviewing development applications are the

foundation of the project review process, including the Department’s ability to inform the

public, initiate review, and establish clear entitlement timeframes and expectations. Current

procedures allow for multiple rounds of overlapping review and can create opportunities

for confusion, redundant work, and unnecessary delays. Of all residential new construction

projects currently under review, roughly half were initiated more than two years ago,

exceeding the longest entitlement timeframe of 22 months established in the Executive

Directive.

The following proposed measures would comprise a significant shift in the way the

Department, and project sponsors, engage in the review process. These changes are

proposed to establish clear and consistent project descriptions; streamline the way staff

conduct project review; clarify expectations for the Department and project sponsors; and

integrate the entitlement timeframes established in the Executive Directive into the

development review process.

A.1. Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA) Review Action Phase

A.1.1. Convert the PPA letter to an abbreviated PPA response

packet including a cover letter stating key policy and design

issues related to the project and expected entitlement path;

checklists summarizing how specific Planning Code and

environmental review provisions will apply to the project; and

a policy factsheet to be included as an attachment, which will

cover broader policy considerations that may or may not apply

to the specific project and are currently included as standard

language in PPA letters. PPA responses will be delivered no

later than 60 days following application, rather than the

current 90-day response period.

Department Policy 1

A.1.2. Revise and clarify intake requirements for PPA

applications, as needed, and reassess intake staffing practices

to ensure applications supply all necessary information in a

complete and acceptable manner prior to commencing review.

Department Policy;

Operating Procedures

1

A.1.3. Discontinue acceptance of an Environmental

Evaluation Application (EEA) concurrently with the PPA.

EEAs will be accepted as part of a consolidated Development

Application (see A.2.1 below). This change will significantly

improve the value and efficiency of the environmental review

process by ensuring that project descriptions are sufficiently

stable prior to commencing review.

Department Policy 1

7

A.1.4. Reduce and consolidate the number of internal and

external meetings associated with the PPA review. Internal

project review meetings will be consolidated into a single

meeting held concurrently with the project's (UDAT) Urban

Design Advisory Team review meeting. Only one meeting with

the applicant team will be provided, as an optional meeting

following issuance of the PPA response packet.

Department Policy 1

A.1.5. Revise staffing practices among Divisions for PPA

applications to maximize efficiency and value of each Division's

role in the review process.

Operating Procedures 1

A.2. Development Application and Review Process Action Phase

A.2.1. Provide one consolidated Development Application to

be submitted for all projects that require an entitlement action

or environmental review, including supplemental forms to

capture necessary detail related to specific entitlements (e.g.,

Conditional Use Authorization), Environmental Evaluations,

Historic Resource Evaluations, and Streetscape Plans, as

applicable. This Development Application will include a master

project description that will greatly improve certainty and

consistency.

Department Policy 1

A.2.2. Within 30 days from the filing date, provide the

applicant a notice that the Application was deemed complete

or not complete, including an assessment of its responsiveness

to any requirements stated in the PPA response packet and

specifying any outstanding items that are required. This 30-day

review period will recommence each time a revised Application

is received until it can be deemed complete.

Department Policy 1

A.2.3. Once an Application is deemed complete, issue a first

consolidated Notice of Planning Department Requirements

(NOPDR) or state that nothing additional is required, in a

consistent timeframe. Once the applicant has submitted a

response to the NOPDR, staff will have 30 days to verify if the

response is complete; this review period will recommence with

any subsequent responses to the NOPDR, if necessary.

Department Policy 1

A.2.4. Upon verification of a complete response to the first

NOPDR, notify the applicant of the project's entitlement

schedule (i.e. 6, 9, 12, 18, or 22 months per the Executive

Directive), including target deadlines for intermediate

milestones and deliverables and the project's entitlement

hearing date before the Planning Commission. Planning Code

compliance review and environmental review will commence

no sooner than this notification.

Department Policy 1

8

A.2.5. Develop all necessary administrative and technical

capabilities to implement this Application procedure,

including any necessary modifications to application fee

schedules, electronic permit tracking functions, and internal

staff and case assignment practices.

Administrative/

Technology Procedures

1

A.2.6. Revise Director's Bulletin No. 2 to establish clear

department-wide criteria for Priority Application Processing

to support the entitlement timeframes for residential projects

established in the Executive Directive and develop all necessary

administrative and technology capabilities to implement.

Department Policy 1

A.3. Plan Submittal and Intake Action Phase

A.3.1. Adopt a uniform set of Application Submittal

Guidelines, including required size, format, and content of

plan sets and a single point of contact for the project sponsor

team.

Department Policy 1

A.3.2. Develop capability to accept applications and plans

online to enhance staff’s capacity to efficiently review

submittals for consistency and completeness.

Administration/

Technology

2

A.3.3. Establish clear communication protocols for sponsors to

contact staff during the review process, including guidelines for

when requests for review meetings may be granted or deferred.

Operating Procedures 1

A.3.4. Establish function-based email addresses (i.e.

HRE@sfgov.org) that go to the appropriate intake staff or staff

team, rather than relying on individual staff members' direct

contact information.

Administration/

Technology

1

A.4. Public Notification and Community Outreach Action Phase

A.4.1. Complete the Planning Department website strategy

and design upgrade to improve the overall user interface, user

experience, transparency and availability of public documents

and information about the Department’s projects, initiatives

and procedures. The completion of the website redesign will

make it easier for members of the public to locate the

information and services they need, including the capabilities to

support the below alternative notification proposals.

Administration/

Technology

2

A.4.2. Notification Format and Content

a. Convert mailed notice packet to a postcard format with a

web link to plans and applications for active projects within

the noticing period to expand public access to this information

while reducing staff time and material resources to prepare and

mail packets. Make hard copies available for pick-up at the

Planning Department or by phone request.

Planning Code

Amendment;

Administration/

Technology

2

9

b. Adopt consistent requirements for content, size, and format

for all notice types, including mailed and posted notice, to

streamline staff time spent preparing notices and reduce room

for error in noticing materials.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

c. Use the Permit and Project Tracking System (PPTS) to

automatically generate notice content from project records.

Administration/

Technology

2

d. Explore alternatives to newspaper noticing for actions that

require general notification, such as email lists and online

posting to the Planning Department or other City websites in

order to expand public access to this information while freeing

up staff time and reproduction resources for other needs.

Planning Code

Amendment;

Administration/

Technology

2

A.4.3. Notice Period and Mailing Radius

a. Review required notice periods for consistency and unique

considerations of each notice type to reduce staff time and

potential for error in fulfilling noticing requirements.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

b. Adopt a consistent mailing radius for owners and/or

occupants for all notice types to reduce staff time and potential

for error in fulfilling noticing requirements.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

A.4.4. Streamline Required Notice Types

a. Revise land use types that require 312 notice in NC and

Mixed-Use Districts to ensure efficient use of staff time and

focus attention on those uses are of specific public interest and

for which other controls (e.g. Formula Retail) are not available

to address the concern. Examples to consider include Limited

Restaurant, Restaurant, and Group Housing.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

b. Revise 312 notice requirement in the Eastern Neighborhood

Mixed Use Districts such that notice is no longer required for

change of use from any land use category to any other category,

but only for changes of use to or from specific use categories of

particular concern.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

c. Review additional minor alterations that may be exempted

from 311/312 notification in Residential and NC Districts to

ensure that routinely permitted scopes of work that have

negligible impact to the surrounding neighborhood can

proceed with the appropriate level of staff time and resources.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

d. Inventory Building Permits that are also required to issue

public notice by DBI and other agencies and consider whether

such duplicative noticing can be consolidated.

Code Amendments 2

e. Revise notice of Project Receiving Environmental Review

content and procedures to align with modifications to other

notice types and consolidated Development Application

procedures in A.2.1. above.

Department Policy 2

10

B. Routine Projects and Permits

The Planning Department exercises jurisdiction over a wide array of changes in the physical

environment, ranging from window replacements in single-family homes to the

construction of new high-rise towers. Many of the projects that fall within the Department’s

purview require detailed and complex staff analysis, and rightfully demand significant time

and coordination to properly review. Many other projects, however, can be reviewed and

approved in minutes provided clear regulatory guidance and the attention of experienced

planning professionals. Already, some 5,000 building permits are reviewed and approved

“over the counter” (OTC) at the Planning Information Center (PIC) every year by dedicated

staff who also field general planning questions and serve as the first point of contact for

more complex projects as well.

The following measures are proposed to enhance the ability of planning staff to process

projects that can already be approved over the counter, and expand the projects in this

category. Such measures can significantly reduce its permit backlog, reduce project review

times, and focus professional resources on the issues most in need of in depth analysis.

B.1. Enhance Capacity for OTC Approvals Action Phase

B.1.1. Reassess overall PIC staffing and resources to ensure

that OTC permit volume and general inquiries can be

accommodated efficiently and with accuracy.

Operating Procedures 1

B.1.2. Assign a Planner Technician position to the PIC to

complete permit intake procedures, provide additional support

functions, and handle very routine OTC approvals.

Operating Procedures 2

B.1.3. Consider dividing the PIC counter by function (e.g.,

general questions, approvals and intakes, preservation) to

provide more efficient and accurate service to the public by

matching specialized staff to the type of inquiry or action and to

allow staff to direct their time more efficiently at PIC.

Operating Procedures 1

B.1.4. In collaboration with the Department of Building

Inspection, explore replacement of paper building permits

with joint electronic tracking by Planning and DBI in the

Permit and Project Tracking System (PPTS).

Administration/

Technology

(interagency)

2

B.1.5. Integrate the existing CEQA Categorical Exemption

checklist into the PPTS interface to allow for faster processing

of projects that are already eligible for OTC approval when a

Categorical Exemption can be granted.

Administration/

Technology

1

B.1.6. Expand use of Planning stations at DBI 5th floor for

"advanced" OTC plan review and approval, including a by-

appointment feature, for more complex OTC categories

(existing and proposed); pilot these procedures with Accessory

Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Unit Legalization projects.

Operating Procedures;

Administration/

Technology

(interagency)

2

11

B.2. Expand Permits for OTC Approval Action Phase

B.2.1. Identify commonly approved or minor scopes of work

that can be regulated by quantitative or descriptive standards

(e.g., certain permitted obstructions in yards or setbacks,

including limited horizontal additions or infills under existing

decks) that can be approved OTC; in some cases also modify

thresholds for intake to accommodate very common scopes of

work that are typically approved; indicate when certain

approvals will require "advanced" OTC capability due to

complexity or related code compliance review.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

B.2.2. Remove requirement for Certificate of Appropriateness

and Minor Permit to Alter for specific scopes of work, within

thresholds established in Articles 10 and 11, to eliminate

Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) hearings and

associated hold times for these, and to allow OTC approval by

Preservation planners at PIC. Scopes of work include Rooftop

Appurtenances (excluding wireless facilities), Skylights,

Automatic Door Operators, and Business Signage.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

B.2.3. Provide a clear checklist of acceptable window

treatments for Class B (age-eligible, but not surveyed) buildings

to allow non-preservation planners to approve window

replacement permits OTC more efficiently.

Operating Procedures 1

B.3. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Unit Legalizations Action Phase

B.3.1. Establish parallel processing procedures for ADUs and

Unit Legalizations that will allow for concurrent review by

Planning and Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to

expedite approval of these small-scale but common density

increases.

Department Policies;

Operating Procedures

(interagency)

1

B.3.2. Provide for combined pre-application meetings for

ADUs with Planning, DBI, and Fire Department (SFFD), as

needed, upon request of project sponsor.

Department Policies

(interagency)

3

B.3.3. Establish an ADU liaison at all responsible agencies

(Planning, DBI, SFFD, Public Works, SFPUC) involved in

review and approval of ADUs to establish protocols for

streamlining permit review and serve as a technical resource

and coordinator for staff and project sponsors to simplify and

expedite approval of ADUs.

Department Policies

(interagency)

3

12

B.3.4. Develop capability for ADU and Unit Legalization OTC

plan review and approval by appointment, with electronic

documentation provided in advance, to facilitate faster

approvals by using a Planning station at DBI as an exclusive

ADU/Legalization station.

Administration/

Technology

1

B.3.5. In collaboration with the Rent Board, develop enhanced

procedures for property owners to obtain eviction history

information prior to filing a building permit for ADUs to

reduce staff time spent on ineligible projects.

Operating Procedures

(interagency)

3

13

C. Environmental Planning, Historic Preservation, and Design Review

San Francisco is one of a kind. Our rich cultural and architectural legacy and truly unique

natural setting are a justifiable source of pride for all, including the professionals of the San

Francisco Planning Department. A complex web of local, state, and federal regulatory

frameworks are in place to protect and preserve this unique character, even as the city

continues to grow and change. These policies are executed by a committed group of

environmental planning specialists, preservationists, architects and designers.

The following measures have been developed by these teams to consolidate, clarify, and

strengthen related procedures and processes that have been proven effective, and revisit the

practices we recognize can get in the way of good planning. By improving the way we

balance environmental, preservation, and design factors in the development process, we

enhance our ability to appropriately weigh other factors, like housing opportunity, in the

balance as well.

C.1. Environmental Review Action Phase

C.1.1. Codify Effective Mitigation Measures

a. Archeology: Codify archeological review procedures and

mitigation measure requirements. Expand archeological

sensitivity areas in order to streamline review.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

b. Transportation: Create best practices for driveway and curb

cut design and off and on street loading and queue

management. Codify requirements from these best practices,

including potential study requirements.

Planning Code

Amendment

3

c. Noise: Revise the Noise Ordinance to require health

protective criteria for construction impact equipment and an

analysis with a development application that demonstrates

proposed mechanical equipment compliance with health

protective criteria.

Police Code

Amendment

3

d. Air Quality: Adopt a community risk reduction plan and/or

legislation that requires health protective criteria for

construction exhaust and stationary sources for areas within the

air pollutant exposure zone.

Public Health Code

Amendment

3

C.1.2. Improvements to Topic-Specific Review Procedures

a. Transportation

i. Re-assess department wide transportation review.

For small and medium size projects, rely on existing

internal intra and inter-departmental review bodies to

address the technical and policy related aspects of

localized transportation impacts.

Operating Procedure 2

14

ii. Update Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.

The department last updated the guidelines in 2002.

Specifically, conduct and analyze data that will result in

the creation of refined trip generation estimates for

newer developments, including the impacts of emerging

mobility service.

Department Policy 2

iii. Create and maintain a web-based, travel demand

tool using the data from the guidelines update. The tool

will reduce staff review time needed to estimate travel

demand or "trips generated", and also reduce time and

cost associated with iterative review of technical

transportation studies provided by external consultants.

Administration/

Technology

3

b. Wind

i. Create guidelines that outline the criteria,

methodology, and thresholds for wind analysis.

Operating Procedure 2

ii. Explore creation of a computerized wind screening

tool at environmental planning.

Operating Procedure 3

c. Shadow

i. Update guidelines that outline the criteria,

methodology, and thresholds for shadow analysis. The

department last updated the guidelines in 2014.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

ii. Revise the Planning Code to allow for administrative

modification of shadow impact limits for specific

facilities when no environmental impact is found

through CEQA-compliant review

Planning Code

Amendment

3

C.1.3. Technical studies and consultants

a. Integrate technical studies analysis into environmental

review documents, and include technical elements of the

analysis as part of the administrative record instead of

requiring a separate technical study and review process. Those

technical studies include: air quality, archeology, biology (may

need to be separated case by case), noise, preservation, shadow,

transportation, and wind.

Operating Procedure 1

b. Revise standards for acceptable deliverables from

consultants, including performance standards to reflect target

timeframes, and update the list of qualified consultants to

ensure the current pool is responsive to all current standards.

Department Policy 1

c. Reassess the criteria for requiring a consultant-prepared

technical study.

Operating Procedure 1

e. Develop scope-of-work templates (e.g. checklists) for each

technical study. Make these documents easily available to

sponsors and consultants early in the process.

Operating Procedure 2

15

C.1.4. Environmental Review Exemptions

a. Expand the exemption checklist form to cover more classes

of exemption and discontinue "certificates" for exemptions.

Department Policy 1

b. Reassess procedures and applicability of infill exemptions

(e.g. Class 32 exemptions).

Department Policy 1

c. Discontinue required development density conformance

form (“CPE Referral”) to be completed by Current and

Citywide Planning divisions for Community Plan Evaluations

(CPEs); this verification procedure would no longer be

necessary under the proposed modifications to the

Development Application and EEA procedures.

Operating Procedure 1

C.1.5. General Environmental Review procedures

a. Prepare (or request the assigned environmental consultant to

prepare) an impact statement tracking sheet that would

indicate the likely environmental impacts of a project at the

earliest possible stage of environmental review to enhance the

clarity and transparency of the review process.

Operating Procedure 1

b. Allow for concurrent drafting and review of administrative

draft Initial Studies and single topic EIRs or limited topic

EIRs, or include those Initial Study topics to be in a separate,

smaller section of EIR in order to consolidate response period

and reduce delays between NOP and final determination

document.

Operating Procedure 1

c. Create a list of standard short responses for response to

comments for project merit and non-CEQA comments.

Operating Procedure 1

d. Clearly define the types of projects to be included in

consideration of cumulative impacts.

Operating Procedure 2

e. Reassess planner assignments for Preliminary Project

Assessment (PPAs) and Environmental Evaluation

Applications (EEAs) (e.g. default to the same planner for both

types of review) or create teams that conduct PPA and

application completeness review).

Operating Procedure 1

16

C.2. Historic Preservation Review Action Phase

C.2.1. Revise Preservation Bulletin No. 16 to provide clear,

updated guidance on how the department conducts historic

impact analysis – both in determining whether a resource is

present and in assessing impacts to historic resources.

Department Policy 2

C.2.2. Complete a citywide historic preservation survey to

eliminate case-by-case review for many projects. Prioritize

surveying first on areas seeing the most residential

development activity and establish criteria for not requiring a

new Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) after survey is

conducted at the site clarify the historic review process for

already surveyed sites.

Historic Preservation

Commission

Adoption

3

C.2.3. Reassess Historic Preservation staffing at Planning

Information Center (PIC) to expedite review and Over-the-

Counter (OTC) approval on historic properties, where

appropriate.

Operating

Procedures

2

C.3. Design Review Action Phase

C.3.1. Identify design guidelines and criteria that could be

codified in the Planning Code to reduce the level of individual

analysis required for routine scopes of work and design

treatments (e.g. define a list of acceptable "high quality

materials" in the Planning Code)

Planning Code

Amendment

3

C.3.2. Re-evaluate scheduling and staffing of Urban,

Residential, and Streetscape Design Advisory Team (UDAT,

RDAT, SDAT) review meetings.

Operating

Procedures

2

C.3.3. Complete update to the Urban Design Guidelines

(UDGs) in order to add greater and more objective specificity

of acceptable design approaches to better guide Planning staff

and project sponsors.

Planning

Commission

Adoption

1

C.3.4. Complete and publish a How-To Guide on the

residential design review to increase public understanding of

the process and decrease staff time related to confusion arising

from this process.

Department Policy 1

C.3.5. Create Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) Matrix

template to be used by current planners and design review staff

to help establish compliance with the RDGs in lieu of

Residential Design Advisory Team (RDAT) notes to increase

public understanding of the process and decrease staff time

related to confusion arising from this process.

Operating

Procedures

1

17

D. Planning Code and Commission Policies

This year marks the centennial of the San Francisco Planning Commission and the

subsequent adoption of the City’s first Zoning Ordinance, an occasion to reflect on the

essential role that the Planning Commission and Planning Code have played in shaping the

character of this unique city over the past century. This history also reminds us that the

policies and purview of the Commission are ever-evolving as conditions change. For

instance, Conditional Use Authorization (CUA) originated as a means of regulating the

placement of gas stations at the beginning of the automobile era, while today the Planning

Code requires a CUA in order to remove a gas station in many cases. Similarly, the power of

Discretionary Review (DR) originated as a means to guarantee public review at a time when

the Planning Code did not include the robust development standards, public notification

requirements, or thresholds for review that it does today.

While this plan is intended to reinforce the Commission’s authority to exercise such

discretion, the Department recognizes that staff time associated with processing DR requests

(the equivalent of roughly two full-time planners each year), is one of many areas that

should be reconsidered in light of current priorities and conditions. The measures below are

proposed to align our policies and practices to better reflect the purview and sophistication

of today’s Planning Code; the entitlement timeframes established in the Executive Directive;

and the evolving issues we face as a city in order to focus review by planners and

Commissioners on those issues most in need of robust public deliberation.

D.1. General Planning Commission Procedures Action Phase

D.1.1. Schedule all residential projects for an entitlement

hearing automatically within the review timeframes

established in the Executive Directive (i.e. 6, 9, 12, 18, or 22

months) at the point of first complete response to NOPDR, as

specified in the above proposed Development Application

procedures; in cases where the application review is not

complete in time for the hearing date, the Planning Director or

designated senior manager will report to the Commission the

outstanding issues and revised schedule.

Commission Policy 1

D.1.2. Consider a policy to automatically schedule an

entitlement revocation hearing for entitled projects to require

the projects that have not begun construction within a specific

period of time to return to the Commission in order to evaluate

progress toward securing necessary building and other permits

and to revoke the entitlement if deemed appropriate. This is

intended to increase public understanding of the post-

entitlement review process, encourage greater collaboration

between the Planning Department and Department of Building

Inspection (DBI), and enhance oversight of entitled projects.

Commission Policy 2

18

D.1.2. Revise standards for packet materials to be provided to

Commission in advance of hearings by staff (e.g., Executive

Summaries, Case Reports, Draft Motions) to include only the

most pertinent analysis, deferring to materials provided in the

project sponsor application where possible.

Operating Procedures 1

D.2. Discretionary Review (DR) Procedures Action Phase

D.2.1. Automatically schedule the DR hearing for the next

hearing date no more than 45 days from the end date of the

notice period and require all additional documentation from

the DR filer and response from the project sponsor within 2

weeks from the filing date.

Commission Policy 1

D.2.2. Streamline hearing materials for DRs such that

Department Staff would prepare only a brief cover memo that

would largely serve as a table of contents for attached materials,

including Residential Design Advisory Team (RDAT)

comments, and materials submitted by the DR filer and project

sponsor, including plan sets and photographs.

Operating Procedures 1

D.2.3. Revise RDAT review procedures, such as replacing

written RDAT comments with the Residential Design

Guidelines (RDG) matrix, adjusting the RDAT review schedule,

or revisiting the roles of RDAT staff in review.

Operating Procedures 1

D.2.4. Make requests for additional staff analysis for DR cases

as part of a formal motion for continuance by the Commission

in order to ensure that staff time is only redirected when the

full Commission deems appropriate.

Commission Policy 1

D.2.5. Present all DR cases at Commission by a designated

senior staff member working closely with RDAT staff rather

than the project planner to ensure greater consistency in staff

treatment of DR cases at Commission and to reduce time

commitment for planning staff.

Operating Procedures 1

D.3. Conditional Use Authorizations (CUAs) Action Phase

D.3.1. Consider making change of use from one formula retail

use to another formula retail use, or the addition of a formula

retail use within an existing or proposed formula retail use,

principally permitted rather than conditionally permitted in

order to reduce the number of cases brought to the Commission

and Department staff, recognizing that Conditional Use

Authorization for the establishment of a new formula retail use

in a location previously occupied by another use is an effective

policy for regulating the presence of formula retail in the City.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

19

D.3.2. Consider removal of Conditional Use Authorization for

HOME-SF projects and provide for administrative approval of

certain density bonuses and exceptions designated in the

Planning Code in order to facilitate the use of this program and

produce more housing, including more affordable units.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.3.3. Consider removing the requirement to re-issue a

Conditional Use Authorization for existing temporary parking

lots in C-3 districts, which must currently be renewed every 5

years even when no physical changes are proposed.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.3.4. Consider removing the requirements for a Conditional

Use Authorization for the establishment of a Restaurant or

Limited Restaurant in Zoning Districts where no specific

controls regarding restaurant concentrations are in place.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.4. Planning Code Clarification and Reorganization Action Phase

D.4.1. Review the Code to ensure consistent and accurate

definition of all key terms, including in different Articles, and

eliminate areas of duplicative or outdated definitions (e.g.,

"Development Application")

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.4.2. Continue to pursue reorganization of certain Articles to

clarify key terms, use categories, exceptions, and procedures

and ensure that the provisions of each Article are readily

understandable to the general public, project sponsors, and

planners with minimal room for ambiguity or interpretation.

Article 7 (Neighborhood Commercial Districts) was recently

reorganized in this manner. Articles 8 (Mixed Use Districts) and

9 (Mission Bay Districts) have been identified for upcoming

reorganization efforts.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.5. Planning Code Section Refinements Action Phase

D.5.1. Remove the requirement that all Inclusionary units

provided through the Inclusionary Affordable Housing

Program be ownership units unless the sponsor has entered

into a Costa-Hawkins letter agreement with the City. This

change is now permitted by recent changes to state law and is

intended to remove an unnecessary administrative burden and

achieve significant time savings for staff specializing in

housing.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.5.2. Amend Section 309 to be consistent with Section 329 by

allowing the Planning Commission the ability to grant the same

exceptions as allowed under Section 329. This will eliminate

the need for most variances for new construction projects

downtown, similar to the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Areas.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

20

D.5.3. Consider modifications to the Planning Code to clarify

the applicability and entitlement path for 100% affordable

projects that qualify for the streamlined approval process

recently established in state law.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

D.5.4. Provide further clarifications in the Planning Code to

reduce the need for Variances for many Accessory Dwelling

Unit (ADU) projects (e.g., for exposure, rear yard controls) to

reduce process and opportunity for delays for these routine

increases in residential density in existing buildings.

Planning Code

Amendment

2

21

E. Administration, Training, and Technology

The Department has several technology projects already underway that will streamline the

Department’s work in support of the Executive Directive to increase housing production

and decrease entitlement and permitting timelines. Many are being pursued as

enhancements to the Department’s existing Permit and Project Tracking System (PPTS).

These technology projects are intended to increase public transparency, assure data integrity

and financial accountability, and improve performance with the overarching goal of

supporting staff to increase efficiencies in the Department’s development review functions.

E.1. Technology Improvements Action Phase

E.1.1. Configure and implement capability to accept online

applications and payments to reduce time spent preparing and

processing documents and checks by staff and project sponsors.

Administration/

Technology

2

E.1.2. Develop a solution to perform electronic plan review, to

support “advanced” over the counter (OTC) approvals and

enhance tracking and coordination of application review.

Administration/

Technology

2

E.1.3. Enhance Planning’s electronic document management

system to streamline and improve staff’s ability to store, search,

and edit records.

Administration/

Technology

1

E.1.4. Finalize coordination and launch an integrated permit

and project tracking system with the Department of Building

Inspections (DBI).

Administration/

Technology

(interagency)

2

E.1.5. Introduce an impact fee calculator tool for use by project

planners to reduce staff time associated with assessing impact

fees and to reduce uncertainty and improve consistency and

tracking of impact fee collection.

Administration/

Technology

1

E.2. Administration and Training Practices Action Phase

E.2.1. Continue ongoing efforts to increase regular training

opportunities for staff on current topics such as urban design

guideline updates or Planning Code amendments.

Operating Procedures 1

E.2.2. Work with the Department of Human Resources (DHR)

to review certain City technology and personnel procedures

that impact staff time spent on administrative functions.

Operating Procedures

(interagency)

3

E.2.3. Reassess meeting and communication protocols for staff

to more effectively manage coordination with project sponsors,

other city agencies, community members, and other concerned

parties.

Operating Procedures

1